PULASKI COUNTY PROPOSED SUBDIVISION RULES AND REGULATIONS - CHAPTER 8

1
PULASKI COUNTY PROPOSED SUBDIVISION RULES AND
REGULATIONS -CHAPTER 8
2
Goals

• To revise the Pulaski County Subdivision Rules
  and Regulations for the first time in over 30
  years in a manner that adequately addresses
  public concerns, but remains fair to property
  owners.
• To protect public water supply reservoirs,
  through the revised Subdivision Rules and
  Regulations, while treating landowners in the
  area fairly (Chapter 8).

3
Geographic Facts about the Watershed

• The Lake Maumelle Watershed is comprised of 137.5
  square miles.
• 67.2 square miles of the Watershed are located in
  Pulaski County.

4
Geographic Facts about Pulaski County

• The unincorporated area of Pulaski County is
  comprised of 580 square miles.
• The City of Little Rock is comprised of 121
  square miles.
• The City of North Little Rock is comprised of
  50.75 square miles.

5
Zoning

• Does the County have Zoning authority?
• Yes.
• Can the County zone just one area of the County?
• Yes
• However, the area the County is being asked to
  zone is larger than the second largest city in
  the County.(67.2 square miles in the Watershed
  vs. 50.75 in North Little Rock)

6
Zoning

• North Little Rock has a Planning Budget of
  approximately 1.3 million.
• Pulaski County currently budgets 177,000 for its
  Planning Department.

7
Subdivision Rules vs. Zoning

• Implementation of Chapter 8 is currently expected
  to require the following
• 3 additional positions
• 3 vehicles for monitoring in the watershed
• Office space and supplies for additional
  personnel
• This equates to about 93,000 in start up costs
  and approximately 177,000/year

8
Why Subdivision Rules and Regulations?

• County has operated under Subdivision Rules and
  Regulations since 1968.
• Residents in the unincorporated area are more
  familiar with, and, thus more accepting of
  subdivision rules and regulations.
• County already has a Planning Department and
  Planning Board in place.
• Less expensive to implement than zoning.

9
Why not Zoning?

• County has never had zoning.
• Many residents in the unincorporated area, the
  only territory to which the countys zoning
  authority extends, are opposed to zoning.
• County has limited financial and personnel
  resources and limited office space.
• County has no permitting department.
• County has no code enforcement department.
• Even if the county zoned the area, the zoning
  ordinance could not implement the Plan without
  revision because the Plan contains provisions
  that constitute a taking.

10
Explanation of Differences between Plan and
Ordinance

• Conservation Design Approach
• Relies on minimum requirements for open space and
  lot sizes, capping impervious area, and road
  surfacing.
• Performance Standard Approach
• Relies on engineered stormwater Best Management
  Practices (BMPs) to meet water quality targets.
  Allows the most flexibility to the landowner in
  site design, including lot size, housing density,
  imperviousness, road improvements, and off-site
  land conservation.

11
Explanation of Differences between Plan and
Ordinance

• Those that oppose the ordinance argue that the
  Conservation Design approach contained in the
  Plan is the only effective means to protect water
  quality.
• Experts in the engineering field are just as
  adamant that BMPs will effectively maintain water
  quality.
• Even Tetra Tech proposed the Performance
  Standards Approach, but several members of the
  Lake Maumelle Watershed Management Plan Policy
  Advisory Council objected strongly to a
  management approach that would rely solely on
  structural engineering techniques to achieve
  pollutant load allocations. Tetra Tech therefore
  developed the Performance Standards approach in
  the Plan that blends a minimum level of open
  space preservation as the first line of defense
  or insurance policy.

12
Explanation of Differences between Plan and
Ordinance

• The Conservation Design is merely one version
  of a Performance Standards Approach using minimum
  open space, minimum lot size, and maximum
  imperviousness as BMPs.
• The Conservation Design is untested in the
  watershed.

13
Explanation of Differences between Plan and
Ordinance

• Wastewater Management
• Plan provides that On-site systems are preferred
  and force line systems (to pump wastewater out of
  the watershed) are to be used as an exception.
• The Ordinance, at the request of CAW, was drafted
  to provide a preference for force line systems.

14
Explanation of Differences between Plan and
Ordinance

• Wastewater Management
• Again, this is an issue on which experts
  disagree.
• Tetra Tech supports an On-site system whereby
  septic tanks receive raw wastewater from the
  residence or business, and sometimes pump tanks
  to provide dosing pressure to the capping fill or
  mounded effluent dispersal area. For cluster
  developments, the septic tank effluent from each
  home is collected and routed to another site for
  further treatment and eventual release into the
  subsurface.

15
Explanation of Differences between Plan and
Ordinance

• Wastewater Management
• CAW prefers that wastewater be removed from the
  watershed when practicable. The Plan
  acknowledges that there are some circumstances
  where pumping wastewater out of the watershed
  might be the most environmentally sound
  alternative, but would impose caps on the volume
  to be pumped to that sufficient to service 300
  households (density control Zoning).
• The caps would result in more smaller wastewater
  facilities in the watershed.

16
Explanation of Differences between Plan and
Ordinance

• Wastewater Management
• Some argue that smaller facilities pose less of a
  risk to water quality in the event of system
  failure.
• Others argue that fewer larger facilities outside
  the watershed are more easily maintained, thereby
  reducing the risk of system failure.

17
Explanation of Differences between Plan and
Ordinance

• Minimum Lot Size Requirement
• The Plan imposes a minimum lot size requirement
  of 5 acres regardless of the design approach
  used.
• Proponents of the Plan argue that the minimum lot
  size is absolutely essential to protect water
  quality.
• Other experts argue, just as vehemently, that
  engineered BMPs can be used to meet water quality
  standards without imposing a minimum lot size
  requirement.

18
Explanation of Differences between Plan and
Ordinance

• Minimum Lot Size Requirement
• Many believe the minimum lot size requirement
  will control density of population in the
  Watershed.
• That is not necessarily true. While it may limit
  the number of structures, it does not limit the
  number of people.
• The Plan does not address the fact that a
  landowner can build up (i.e., mid- to high-rise
  developments).

19
Explanation of Differences between Plan and
Ordinance

• Exemptions
• The Plan provides a Legacy exemption for
  landowners as of December 2000. The exemption
  would allow owners to develop five 3 acre tracts
  without complying with the Plan.
• The Plan does not contain a non-aggregation
  clause for the exemptions.
• The 15 acres per landowner remains exempt FOREVER
  regardless of transfer of ownership.

20
Explanation of Differences between Plan and
Ordinance

• Exemptions
• The Ordinance allows a Family Exclusion. Waiver
  of compliance for transfer of subdivided lots to
  immediate family members when no new public roads
  are required for access to any of the subdivided
  lots.
• Subsequent transfers of property outside the
  immediate family trigger Planning Board review.

21
Site Evaluation Tool (SET)

• Ordinance requires that the SET be created as
  part of the Stormwater Management and Drainage
  Manual within 12 months of the adoption of this
  Ordinance.

22
Site Evaluation Tool (SET)

• Prior to adoption of the SET, the project
  engineer must certify that the proposed
  development design will achieve the surface
  runoff loading rates.
• May refer to nationally recognized treatises to
  determine the expected loading rate for
  particular BMPs that are proposed.

23
Site Evaluation Tool (SET)

• The proposed design is subject to review by both
  the County and CAW.
• The first phase of the proposed design is subject
  to a minimum of three (3) years of monitoring to
  ensure that water quality targets are met.

24
Site Evaluation Tool (SET)

• If monitoring results show that target rates are
  not being met, the Developer must mitigate the
  excess loading by implementing one of three
  measures.
• Rehabilitation or maintenance of BMPs or
  installation of additional BMPs
• Dedication of sufficient mitigations lands to
  mitigate the excess loading
• Completion of a Compensatory Environmental
  Project on another property in the watershed.

25
Enforcement of Subdivision Rules and Regulations

• Preliminary Plat Approval
• Final Plat Approval
• Injunctive Relief
• Criminal Penalties
• Bill of Assurance If using the Performance
  Standard Approach, the Bill of Assurance must
  include an appropriate assignment of the right to
  implement the BMP OM Plan to the County, to
  assure that if that Plan is not properly
  implemented, the County, or its authorized
  representative, may do so and the County may
  obtain reimbursement for all costs incurred from
  the responsible party.

26
Effectiveness of Ordinance

• The Lake Maumelle Watershed covers approximately
  88,000 acres and includes portions of Perry,
  Saline, and Pulaski counties.
• Up to 46,500 acres are considered potentially
  developable.
• Of those 46,500 developable acres, approximately
  24,160 acres are located in Pulaski County.

27
Effectiveness of Ordinance

• According to Tetra Tech, CAW would have to
  acquire anywhere from 282 acres to 3465 acres in
  additional mitigation lands under the proposed
  ordinance.
• If CAW has to acquire 282 additional acres, or
  1.16 of the developable land, then the
  ordinance, as is, effectively provides 98.84 of
  the protection for which the Plan calls.
• If CAW has to acquire 3465 additional acres, or
  14.34 of the developable land, then the
  ordinance, as is, effectively provides 85.66 of
  the protection for which the Plan calls.

28
Endorsement of Ordinance

• May 28, 2008 Memorandum from Tetra Tech
• In summary, if the choice is between no
  watershed protection provisions in the
  subdivision ordinance or those proposed for
  Section 8, we would recommend supporting the
  current ordinance provisions as a starting point.
  Many of the supporting activities that CAW has
  outlined in its Watershed Management Plan
  Implementation Strategy (October 2007 version)
  will help in focusing further attention on the
  watershed and provide a basis for further
  ordinance revision in the future if the need is
  demonstrated.

29
Conclusion

• The proposed Subdivision Rules and Regulations
  are an effective mechanism for maintaining water
  quality.
• Build out of the watershed will not be immediate,
  so there is time to analyze the effectiveness of
  the proposed Subdivision Rules and Regulations,
  and amend them if necessary.

30
Comparison of Plan and Ordinance

• Plan
• Recommended loading rates
• Critical Area B (CAB)
• 0.3 lb/ac/yr Phosphorus
• 0.110 tons/ac/yr Suspended Solids
• 44 lb/ac/yr Organic Carbon
• Upper Watershed (UW)
• 0.33 lb/ac/yr Phosphorus
• 0.130 tons/ac/yr Suspended Solids
• 50 lb/ac/yr Organic Carbon

• Ordinance
• Recommended loading rates
• Entire Watershed
• 0.3 lb/ac/yr Phosphorus
• 0.110 tons/ac/yr Suspended Solids
• 44 lb/ac/yr Organic Carbon

Ordinance Stricter
31
Comparison of Plan and Ordinance

• Plan
• Conservation Design Approach
• 5 acre Minimum Lot Size

• Ordinance
• Conservation Design Approach
• Lot Size determined by source of drinking water
  and sewer.
• (Lot size restrictions in Plan are density
  control Zoning).

Plan Stricter
32
Comparison of Plan and Ordinance

• Plan
• Conservation Design Approach
• Minimum Undisturbed Area (UW)
• Low slope 15
• High slope 30

• Ordinance
• Conservation Design Approach
• Minimum Undisturbed Area (UW)
• Low slope 30
• High slope 30

Ordinance Stricter
33
Comparison of Plan and Ordinance

• Plan
• Conservation Design Approach
• Minimum Undisturbed Area (CAB)
• Low slope 30
• High slope 50

• Ordinance
• Conservation Design Approach
• Minimum Undisturbed Area (CAB)
• Low slope 30
• High slope 30

Plan Stricter
34
Comparison of Plan and Ordinance

• Plan
• Conservation Design Approach
• Maximum Percentage of Impervious Area ranges from
  4 to 8.25 across the watershed

• Ordinance
• Conservation Design Approach
• Maximum Percentage of Impervious Area 10 across
  the watershed

Plan Stricter
35
Comparison of Plan and Ordinance

• Plan
• Conservation Design Approach
• Non-Residential Undisturbed Area to Impervious
  Area Ratio
• UW Low Slope 81
• UW High Slope 10.21
• CAB Low Slope 7.91
• CAB High Slope 9.71

• Ordinance
• Conservation Design Approach
• Non-Residential Undisturbed Area to Impervious
  Area Ratio
• UW Low Slope 7.91
• UW High Slope 9.71
• CAB Low Slope 7.91
• CAB High Slope 9.71

Ordinance Stricter
36
Comparison of Plan and Ordinance

• Plan
• Performance Standards Approach
• Calls for pilot projects to determine the
  effectiveness of Best Management Practices (BMPs)
  in the area.

• Ordinance
• Performance Standards Approach
• Allows monitoring for a minimum of 3 years to
  ensure that loading rates are being met.

Same
37
Comparison of Plan and Ordinance

• Plan
• Performance Standards Approach
• Calls for pilot engineering analysis to
  demonstrate compliance with onsite loading limits
  and undisturbed open space requirements.

• Ordinance
• Performance Standards Approach
• Calls for pilot engineering analysis to
  demonstrate compliance with onsite loading
  limits.
• (Requiring open space requirements in addition to
  that necessary to achieve loading rates is
  density control Zoning)

Same
38
Comparison of Plan and Ordinance

• Plan
• Performance Standards Approach
• Adhere to Sedimentation and Erosion Control
  Manual.

• Ordinance
• Performance Standards Approach
• Adhere to Stormwater Management and Drainage
  Manual.

Same
39
Comparison of Plan and Ordinance

• Plan
• Performance Standards Approach
• Use non-discharging wastewater systems.

• Ordinance
• Performance Standards Approach
• Surface discharges of wastewater, with the
  exception of discharges permitted under the
  National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
  (NPDES) storm water discharge program are
  prohibited.

Same
40
Comparison of Plan and Ordinance

• Plan
• Performance Standards Approach
• Local government must have adequate capacity to
  review the applications, review the BMP design,
  inspect BMP construction, and conduct follow-up
  inspections for BMPs.

• Ordinance
• Performance Standards Approach
• Sixty day review process for applications using
  Performance Standard Approach, monitoring
  allowed, Bill of Assurance allows county to
  implement BMP OM plan if owner fails to do so.

Comparison is difficult because the Plan does
not thoroughly address actual implementation of
the Performance Standards Approach.
Same
41
Comparison of Plan and Ordinance

• Plan
• Performance Standards Approach
• Does not address remedies if pilot projects do
  not meet loading rate requirements.
• (Calls for agreed purchase price for CAW to
  purchase mitigation lands (in Critical Area A))

• Ordinance
• Performance Standards Approach
• Calls for rehabilitation or maintenance of BMPs
  or installation of additional BMPs dedication of
  sufficient mitigation lands to offset excess
  load completion of a Compensatory Environmental
  Project on another property.

Ordinance stricter
42
Comparison of Plan and Ordinance

• Plan
• Wastewater Management
• Calls for State of Arkansas to adopt and enforce
  a standard of no direct wastewater discharge in
  the Lake Maumelle Watershed

• Ordinance
• Wastewater Management
• No action required by county.

43
Comparison of Plan and Ordinance

• Plan
• Wastewater Management
• On-site non-discharging systems or facilities
  that meet the requirement for pumping water out
  of the watershed.
• Create a Responsible Management Entity (RME).
• (Note Plan would cap the flow. Ordinance does
  not, because this is a density control Zoning)

• Ordinance
• Wastewater Management
• Force Line Systems and On-Site Systems shall be
  designed and constructed to meet the applicable
  requirements of the Rules and Regulations
  Pertaining to Wastewater Systems, Arkansas
  Department of Health and the applicable
  regulations of the Arkansas Commission on
  Pollution Control and Ecology
• Allows County to designate a Responsible
  Management Entity (RME).

Same
44
Comparison of Plan and Ordinance

• Plan
• Sedimentation and Erosion Control
• Calls for stricter provisions than required by
  state.

• Ordinance
• Sedimentation and Erosion Control
• Same. Requires compliance with all 8
  requirements enumerated in the plan.

Same
45
Comparison of Plan and Ordinance

• Plan
• Exemptions
• Allows additions to existing residences

• Ordinance
• Exemptions
• Additions to existing residences not reviewed by
  Planning Board.

Same
46
Comparison of Plan and Ordinance

• Plan
• Exemptions
• Allows additions to existing non-residential
  structures that increase imperviousness on the
  parcel by less than 10,000 square feet.

• Ordinance
• Exemptions
• Site plan review required for non-residential
  developments and expansions.

Ordinance Stricter
47
Comparison of Plan and Ordinance

• Plan
• Exemptions
• Legacy Exemption.
• All owners of a legally recorded tract as of Dec.
  2000 are allowed to subdivide up to five 3-acre
  lots that are subsequently NEVER subject to the
  plan requirements.

• Ordinance
• Exemptions
• Family Exclusion.
• Waiver of compliance for transfer of subdivided
  lots to immediate family members when no new
  public roads are required for access to any of
  the subdivided lots.
• Subsequent transfer outside of family triggers
  review.

Ordinance Stricter
48
Comparison of Plan and Ordinance

• Plan
• Very Steep Slope
• Should not be developed.
• Allows for variance where very steep slope
  constitutes a large portion of a tract and an
  undue burden is caused the landowner.

• Ordinance
• Very Steep Slope.
• Should not be developed.
• Allows for variance under limited conditions.

Plan Stricter
49
Comparison of Plan and Ordinance

• Plan
• Penalties.
• Calls for withholding of permits, civil and
  criminal penalties, and injunctive relief.
• Calls for fines that exceed those allowed by
  state law.

• Ordinance
• Penalties.
• Establishes criminal penalties and injunctive
  relief.

Plan Stricter
50
Comparison of Plan and Ordinance

• Plan
• Roads.
• Maintenance requirements and maintenance
  covenants for privately owned roads.
  Alternatively, require dedication of public
  maintenance.

• Ordinance
• Roads.
• All roads, even private, must be built to county
  specs.
• Ordinance does not require dedication, however
  Bill of Assurance is required to address
  maintenance responsibility.

Similar
51
Comparison of Plan and Ordinance

• Plan
• Site Evaluation Tool (SET)
• Used to analyze the impacts of alternative
  development designs on pollutant loading from the
  land in designing the Plan .

• Ordinance
• Site Evaluation Tool (SET)
• Required to be in place as part of the Stormwater
  Management and Drainage Manual to be used by
  developers in demonstrating compliance with
  loading rates.

Ordinance Stricter
52
Comparison of Plan and Ordinance

• Plan
• Mitigation Lands to be acquired by CAW
• 1500 acres, over the next 10 years, to offset
  Legacy Exemption.

• Ordinance
• Mitigation Lands to be acquired by CAW.
• ????
• Tetra Tech estimates anywhere from 1782 acres to
  4965 acres.
• However, this estimate is based on some erroneous
  conclusions regarding the family exclusion and
  ignores the fact that the Ordinance requires the
  developer to dedicate the mitigation lands
  necessary to meet the loading rates under
  Performance Standards Approach.

??????????